9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the applicants/appellants. Accordingly, I have heard Shri T. Premkumar, learned SDR. 2. The applicants/appellants are seeking dispensation with the requirement of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 2,67,681.00 denied to them as Modvat credit on the ground that no declaration was filed by them in respect of the inputs on which the Modvat credit has been taken by them during the period from 19-8-1993 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on their own. However, nothing was discussed as regards the description of the goods vis-a-vis the declaration was made by the applicants/appellants. 3. On appeal against the above Order, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that as the appellants had already taken and utilised the Modvat credit, provisions of Rule 57G(5) do not get attracted inasmuch as the applicants/appellants were required to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... months. As one of the consignments was received by the applicants/appellants even prior to six months period, the same cannot be condoned. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned S.D.R. and have gone through the impugned order. I find that the applicants /appellants prayer for condonation of delay has been rejected by the authorities below on the ground that the same was made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facto sanction also and therefore, the said Rule should not be interpreted that special and requisite permission has to be taken before the sanction. Even if such an interpretation is given to this Rule, the same would only result in paper transaction inasmuch as the assessee would reverse back the credit and claim the same under Rule 57G(5) after making a prayer for condonation of delay in filing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
